MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392419834 · doi:10.7202/1109114ar

TOWARDS INSTITUTIONALIZING INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION

2024· article· en· W4392419834 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vassilena Gashparova

Bibliographic record

VenueLex Electronica · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict Management and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMediationPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The obligation to settle international disputes through peaceful means is one of the most fundamental principles of international relations. A variety of dispute resolution mechanisms are at the disposal of states to resolve international disputes. Mediation is undoubtedly one of the most effective dispute-resolution means. However, unlike arbitration and adjudication, there is a lack of consistency in mediation approaches and standards of practice. A careful analysis of international disputes resolved in contemporary history reveals that the facilitators who purport to be mediators do not always comply with fundamental principles of mediation, namely independence, impartiality, and neutrality. This article calls for the institutionalization of international mediation through a permanent independent entity. It argues that institutionalizing mediation is the only way to achieve a reasonable degree of standardization of mediation practices and approaches. The proposed institutionalization will inevitably make mediation more accessible to disputing parties, resulting in a greater number of conflicts being settled through mediation. Institutionalization will also promote research and academic literature in international mediation, bringing about further professionalization of the field. The first part of this article draws a distinction between judicial dispute resolution mechanisms and diplomatic dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation, which continues to evolve in an organic and unsystematic manner. The second part explores well-known international conflicts that have been successfully or unsuccessfully mediated by prominent individuals, namely the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Heads of state, religious leaders, and other dignitaries. The third and last part of the article makes a case that the UN, states, international organizations, religious leaders, and other prominent individuals are rarely, if ever, suitable mediators because they are not independent, impartial, or neutral for a variety of reasons. The logical conclusion to which the analysis leads is that it is high time to institutionalize international mediation by establishing a permanent independent entity entrusted with mediating international disputes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLex ElectronicaSame topicConflict Management and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207